Comment by simianparrot 3 days ago
Except it doesn’t. If you’re poor, 10% directly impacts your life negatively. It means less (or lesser quality) food. It means less money set aside for yourself in the case you need it — and you will.
10% for middle class is fine. That’s just one less night out.
People should not give to charity if they themselves are likely to be dependent on charity.
Yeah no. I used to let people of a higher social order (politicians and media figures) guilt trip me into giving to charity when they themselves just conjure money from taxes I’ve already paid, while the rare few times I’ve needed help due to work injuries the state nor charities were never there for me.
I will help my neighbours and my friends first, real people who will also be there for me. And when it comes to charity for foreign nations, I will never do it. Suicidal empathy is being weaponised and I’m through with it.
I think this reply shows that we're engaging this idea on different planes. I'm primarily focused on the giver, and giving as habit/character formation. (I didn't say a word about who to give to!) You're coming at this through the lens of...something else? Institutional trust? Geopolitics?
> I will help my neighbours and my friends first, real people who will also be there for me.
That sounds great, and perfectly compatible with everything I'm saying.
This comment perfectly illustrates the mindset folks are talking about. "I'll give when it doesn't hurt me so much" is another form of "I'll give when I have more." It doesn't make the person "bad" or any such thing for not giving, but you won't convince folks to not give by saying "but what about you, don't you want nicer food/clothes/etc."
I live in reality. It's me first, then it's my family and my close friends, and then my local community and then, finally, local charities. That's how my budget works. A budget is money in and money out. And when all of that is good, then maybe I'll think about larger charities where I can't be directly involved to see where my help actually goes.
Most people do think they have less than they really do - which is to say there are families living on less income than they are thus proving it is possible with some luxury quality of life compromises. However that doesn't destroy the point that there are people at or near the bottom who shouldn't be giving.
I could get into virtue ethics or religion but I know this is Hacker News, so maybe I can frame it like this:
Telling people to wait until they're financially stable before giving risks creating a dynamic where people never start. The person who says "I'll give when I can afford it" at $30k is likely to say the same thing at $100k, because the scarcity mindset scales with income.
Small-scale giving early on helps build the identity and habits of someone who contributes to their community rather than just consuming from it.
And arguably there are network effects formed from generosity of time/money that can bring long-term benefits as well. It's a spicier idea, but I could even suggest that giving helps you see money as a tool rather than as security itself.